The Denver Post’s editorial was spot-on in its conclusion asking if those opposed to fracking in Colorado understand what a ban would mean, especially given that a “majority of drilling operations use fracking these days. Such a ban would effectively amount to a ban on most new oil and gas operations.”

It’s true the oil and natural gas industry has safely fracked more than 1.2 million wells since 1947, and more than 90 percent of today’s oil and natural gas wells are fracked at some point during their lifespan. But the issue of fracking has fallen into the court of public opinion and it’s now evident that years of misinformation about fracking have had a negative impact on Coloradans. But it isn’t more rules, regulations or restrictions on the industry that are needed. It’s education about the industry that’s needed.

By and large, Coloradans support fracking, but only if it occurs in a safe, environmentally responsible manner. Once Coloradans have all the facts, we’ll all be able to keep calm, and frack on.

Jon Haubert, Denver

The writer is director of communications for Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development.

This letter was published in the Dec. 15 edition.

The editorial board showed its own disconnect on the fracking issue with its summation on the subject: “It would be far more reassuring if a majority of voters across the political spectrum were opposed to handcuffing energy production.” All that the communities in Colorado that passed fracking bans are asking is fracking not take place in their urban areas, as in next to schools, subdivisions and other places dense with population. Passing these bans were Democrats, Republicans and others. The drilling process is industrial, loud and smelly, and volatile organic chemicals are clearly dangerous in these tight confines.

Barb Coddington, Glenwood Springs

This letter was published in the Dec. 15 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2]. Follow eLetters[3] on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

13 Comments To "Coloradans’ attitudes on the use of fracking in drilling (2 letters)"

#1 Comment By Dano2 On December 14, 2013 @ 6:25 pm

We thank the shill from the lobbying firm for this:

It’s true the oil and natural gas industry has safely fracked

I appreciate he has a job to do, and part of his job is to hope no one reading his comedy reads the news (not the Post, but newspapers).

Best,

D

#2 Comment By toohip On December 15, 2013 @ 12:15 pm

“understand what a ban would mean, especially given that a “majority of drilling operations use fracking these days. ” discrimination practices were once a “majority” of operations in this country too, but we were able to over come come much of that with laws. Am I associating fracking with bigotry? No, but just because it’s a majority practice (actually only 60%) doesn’t make it an acceptable practice, just because it increases profit. There were a lot of questionable business practices that increased practices that created laws not because it was profitable but because the practices had consequences to the public.

The thing about fracking is, it’s not localized. It’s not just the land owner who suffers any “alleged” consequences of fracking, it’s the whole community around the land owner who allowed O&G companies to use fracking. THAT is the smoking gun to the argument. When you start affecting an environment, rather than just a lease, it because the public’s issue.

And another false straw man argument that gas production would suffer and the public would go without gas and oil supplies if we banned fracking. I’m not going to research examples of where various business and production practices used to improve production and profit were deemed illegal and banned as a environmental or negative impact to the public, but this is a false argument to suggest we have to sacrifice the quality of our environment to enjoy greater quantities of fossil-based resources and others can gain a profit.

The DP, traditional to it’s fiscal conservative values, is make a big mistake endorsing the O&G industry’s right to sacrifice environment over energy production. Virtually none of the non-O&G sponsored/hired scientists have endorsed fracking as a completely safe practice. While the facts are not concrete, the environmental scientists line up against fracking not as necessary evil, but as a practice that is not needed to produce the gas we need for this country’s future.

#3 Comment By toohip On December 15, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

It’s true the oil and natural gas industry has safely fracked

now rinse and repeat (signed, Herman Goebbels)

#4 Comment By kelcy On December 15, 2013 @ 1:25 pm

If fracking is so dog-gone benign then they should be chomping at the bit to put tracers in their chemicals in order to prove that the liquid is not migrating anywhere. You’ll note that they won`t even tell folks what their chemical cocktails are at all.

#5 Comment By fowler On December 15, 2013 @ 9:45 pm

no energy production is “completely safe”. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the negatives and to what extent the risks can be mitigated. The abundance of natural gas has reduced our carbon emissions significantly, provided an affordable and reliable energy supply that poor people can afford to heat their homes with, provided a cheap source of supply for manufacturing industries, and created a lot of high paying jobs. The counter side is that any energy production is inherently an industrial scale operation, creates disturbances and impacts on natural resources and the environment. Compared to the alternatives, fracking oil and gas provides much more bang for the buck and has a much lower impact than lots of other forms of energy production (coal is dirtier and wind and solar are much more expensive and less reliable). The purported negative environmental impacts of fracking on ground water have not been scientifically proven. Industrial scale solar and wind farms have larger land footprints than gas and oil. Pick your poison, noneof them are “completely safe”.

About two more published papers ought to put that one to rest, methinks. Well, fossil furphies are never put to rest, but still.

And I note that the DFW area has had about enough and reportage is coming out about fugitive emissions and human sickness (no word on how many fire ant colonies are killed, but as Fowler said, its not all bad).

Best,

D

#7 Comment By rwl On December 16, 2013 @ 5:40 pm

Maybe you should look up IP.

#8 Comment By rwl On December 16, 2013 @ 5:42 pm

Considering there is no evidence that sub-surface fracing has not caused any contamination, why do you insist on wearing your tin foil hat.

#9 Comment By fowler On December 16, 2013 @ 8:24 pm

that info came from the US EIA – energy information administration. Natural gas emits about half the greenhouse gas as coal, including methane emissions. But I agree with your underlying premise, you should never trust the government scientists when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, alternative energy sources or climate change.

#10 Comment By Dano2 On December 17, 2013 @ 7:46 am

I agree with your underlying premise

If that were actually the underlying premise, we’d have something to agree on.

Nevertheless, as we are finding out the more we study the issue, the total emissions from end to end may end up being similar to coal, what with the leaks and other fugitive emissions.

Best,

D

#11 Comment By Dano2 On December 17, 2013 @ 7:48 am

there is no evidence that sub-surface fracing has not caused any contamination,

I do agree here that there is no evidence fracking has not caused any contamination. The industry is running far ahead of safety studies.

Best,

D

#12 Comment By Justclimbit On December 17, 2013 @ 11:30 am

LOL. And not wishing to be doubly negative regarding rwl’s comment, but I’m also bit curious about fracking that would not be “sub-surface”. What the frack is that?

#13 Comment By Sciencefirst8 On December 18, 2013 @ 5:01 pm

The toxic chemicals the fracking industry uses and where the end up are a matter of public health and safety, not intellectual property. The government needs to be able to monitor them like any other toxic and polluting chemicals the public is exposed to by any other industry.